Pass. Only those party to the meeting and the vote will know the truth of what was debated and what was agreed. OK has a bit of a knack of shooting from the hip with passion, without necessarily stopping to think or check facts, from my direct experience. So I'd not necessarily rush to ascribe any sinister motives when the explanation may actually be much simpler.

You're probably right about the sinister motive - but I do think that if he is pushing for the game to work and act more closely then this isn't the way to go about it.

On this point - I asked earlier in the thread about the amount mentioned (it says £1m in the article) yet I thought it was only half of the money they would lose - are you aware of the answer here?

So they are a Newco after pages and whole threads of denials in the past. They should therefore have not been granted a SL licence.

Eh?

It was made perfectly clear from inception that this was a totally new COMPANY, formed to take over the assets of the CLUB. Precisely the same as happened with Wakefield and London, inter alia. Stranger things have happened: for example, the club known as Huddersfield Giants is actually Sheffield Eagles as was. The old Sheffleld Eagles company acquired the assets of Hudderfield, and then renamed itself Huddersfield-Sheffiled Giants ltd. before changing its name again to Hiuddersfield Giants Ltd.

Never any denials about it being a new company - indeed the fact was consistently emphasised, to make it clear it was totally new ownership. And that the new owners had no liability for the creditors run up by the old, any more than the new owners of a house have liability for debts run up by the previous owners. And nor did it make much sense for them to be punished financially for the sins of the previous owners, and more than you'd get an attachment of earnings order against a new houseowner because the previous owner had not paid his bills.

But, using my analogy, regardless of ownership the HOUSE still existed. You would not knock the hosue down just because it had changed ownership.

I suggest you are clearly strugling to distinguish between the company owning the club and franchise, and the club itself. Or else persisting with the mishguided crusade you embarked upon a few months ago.

You're probably right about the sinister motive - but I do think that if he is pushing for the game to work and act more closely then this isn't the way to go about it.

On this point - I asked earlier in the thread about the amount mentioned (it says £1m in the article) yet I thought it was only half of the money they would lose - are you aware of the answer here?

My guess is that OK may have said what he FELT, rather than said what he SHOULD. Maybe without first acquainting himself of all the available facts? I have first-hand personal experience of him doing precisely that - and to his loss financially - so I just think the game will have to get used to his style. I doubt he would be a natural recruit for the diplomatic corps...

As for the actual amounts - strangely enough these do not ever seem to have been put in the public domain officially AFAIK? The best consensus seems to be that the club has been stopped 50% of the Sky money for each of 2013 and 2014 - i.e the remainder of the current franchise period. But I do not know this for a certainty.

One could speculate that, just as the points deduction may have been made 6 points not 4 to ensure that Bulls could not make the playoffs (and even then we nearly did...), making the club suffer financially for the remainder of the franchise period in this way ensures that the club goes into the next franchising round very considerably weakened and struggling to get into or even near the top 8. In other words, it will take one hell of an effort to secure a new franchise with one arm tied behind your back, if there are new applicants by then able to make a strong case (as seems likely). Whether this was indeed the case, and whether it was indeed some clubs exacting some sort of revenge on Bradford as I have seen speculated, or whether that is total paranoid nonsense, will be known only to those involved. It is domne, does not change where we are, and all we can do is seek to make the best of the hand we have been dealt.

My guess is that OK may have said what he FELT, rather than said what he SHOULD. Maybe without first acquainting himself of all the available facts? I have first-hand personal experience of him doing precisely that - and to his loss financially - so I just think the game will have to get used to his style. I doubt he would be a natural recruit for the diplomatic corps...

As for the actual amounts - strangely enough these do not ever seem to have been put in the public domain officially AFAIK? The best consensus seems to be that the club has been stopped 50% of the Sky money for each of 2013 and 2014 - i.e the remainder of the current franchise period. But I do not know this for a certainty.

One could speculate that, just as the points deduction may have been made 6 points not 4 to ensure that Bulls could not make the playoffs (and even then we nearly did...), making the club suffer financially for the remainder of the franchise period in this way ensures that the club goes into the next franchising round very considerably weakened and struggling to get into or even near the top 8. In other words, it will take one hell of an effort to secure a new franchise with one arm tied behind your back, if there are new applicants by then able to make a strong case (as seems likely). Whether this was indeed the case, and whether it was indeed some clubs exacting some sort of revenge on Bradford as I have seen speculated, or whether that is total paranoid nonsense, will be known only to those involved. It is domne, does not change where we are, and all we can do is seek to make the best of the hand we have been dealt.

It does seem strange to me that they will punish the club financially. There were issues due to lack of money coming into the Bulls - how will this help?

It'd be interesting to know how this came about and what the rationale is, as quite simply, other than a pure punishment I can't really understand it. All I can think is that this is to show that the new owner is 100% serious and not in it to run the club on a shoe-string and benefit from central funding, but it seems strange.

Their punishment was 6 points deduction - that is what other clubs have had, I'm not a fan of these behind the scenes deals, and unfortunately the Bulls in 2012 appeared to be all about these.

Maybe severely punish the new Bulls owner for the sins of the old, to discourage other clubs from using the Administration route?

Remember how many armmchair experts, who knew fekk all what they were talking about, waxing lyrical on here and especially elsewhere last spring how adminstration was the obvious and straightforward option for clearing the decks and starting afresh?

Anyone remember me consistently saying we had to avoid that option if at all possible, especially with Caisley waiting in the wings, and to be very careful what you wished for?

I think history has proved who called it right, regarding administration being far more traumatic than some of those people assumed?

Maybe the RFL determined that other folk should not get the same idea those misguided people did?

It was made perfectly clear from inception that this was a totally new COMPANY, formed to take over the assets of the CLUB. Precisely the same as happened with Wakefield and London, inter alia. Stranger things have happened: for example, the club known as Huddersfield Giants is actually Sheffield Eagles as was. The old Sheffleld Eagles company acquired the assets of Hudderfield, and then renamed itself Huddersfield-Sheffiled Giants ltd. before changing its name again to Hiuddersfield Giants Ltd.

Never any denials about it being a new company - indeed the fact was consistently emphasised, to make it clear it was totally new ownership. And that the new owners had no liability for the creditors run up by the old, any more than the new owners of a house have liability for debts run up by the previous owners. And nor did it make much sense for them to be punished financially for the sins of the previous owners, and more than you'd get an attachment of earnings order against a new houseowner because the previous owner had not paid his bills.

But, using my analogy, regardless of ownership the HOUSE still existed. You would not knock the hosue down just because it had changed ownership.

I suggest you are clearly strugling to distinguish between the company owning the club and franchise, and the club itself. Or else persisting with the mishguided crusade you embarked upon a few months ago.

I will answer this and then leave it alone as it has been done to death. The Bulls owned the SL Licence. they went into administration. they never came out of administration and are to be liquidated. The NEWCO did not possess a SL licence, therefore should not have been admitted to SL. Or are you saying that SL licences are transferable ?

The NEWCO did not possess a SL licence, therefore should not have been admitted to SL.

This is your opinion. Its a bit naughty trying to present it as 'fact'. Clearly those who have the power to admit clubs/new organisations - i.e the other Superleague clubs - do not agree with you and allowed the NEWCO in.

Or are you saying that SL licences are transferable ?

Well the evidence seems to suggest they are! Did this not happen at another club a few years back? London?

Bulls v Saints is now on Saturday 23rd February, kick off itme not yet decided. I hope it's early though, even lunch-time (providing that isn't too big a deal for Saints fans). And I hope we aren't hit too hard in the pocket. And that we win. And every game until then. And after then.

The new Super League season is kicking off, but only one top flight rugby league club has a woman on its board of directors. Award winning business woman and entrepreneur Kate Hardcastle joined the board of the Bradford Bulls in January. She's a lifelong fan of the club, watching them for the first time aged just two years old, and she's the first female director they've employed in the their history.

It was made perfectly clear from inception that this was a totally new COMPANY, formed to take over the assets of the CLUB. Precisely the same as happened with Wakefield and London, inter alia. Stranger things have happened: for example, the club known as Huddersfield Giants is actually Sheffield Eagles as was. The old Sheffleld Eagles company acquired the assets of Hudderfield, and then renamed itself Huddersfield-Sheffiled Giants ltd. before changing its name again to Hiuddersfield Giants Ltd.

Never any denials about it being a new company - indeed the fact was consistently emphasised, to make it clear it was totally new ownership. And that the new owners had no liability for the creditors run up by the old, any more than the new owners of a house have liability for debts run up by the previous owners. And nor did it make much sense for them to be punished financially for the sins of the previous owners, and more than you'd get an attachment of earnings order against a new houseowner because the previous owner had not paid his bills.

But, using my analogy, regardless of ownership the HOUSE still existed. You would not knock the hosue down just because it had changed ownership.

I suggest you are clearly strugling to distinguish between the company owning the club and franchise, and the club itself. Or else persisting with the mishguided crusade you embarked upon a few months ago.

I think, quite quickly, the story of "Adeybull's House" will become used as a standard example by philosphers, essayists and writers in general, alongside the longstanding ones by Mr Pavlov and his dog and Mr schrödinger's, dead or alive, cat.Homage, Sir!!

I will answer this and then leave it alone as it has been done to death. The Bulls owned the SL Licence. they went into administration. they never came out of administration and are to be liquidated. The NEWCO did not possess a SL licence, therefore should not have been admitted to SL. Or are you saying that SL licences are transferable ?

I think you're confusing two things, Keighley. The club was owned by Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd and it was BBH which went into receivership not the club, and it was the club, and not the whole of BBH (which would have included the debts), which was bought by OK Bulls from the receiver. I think the fate of BBH is still undecided, but the club (and new owner) was given a one year provisional licence by SL/RFL after being vetted. We can all suggest it isn't right/fair or whatever we want, but that was the decision, along with the loss of income which also has to be endured. We have to assume the RFL/SL were acting in the best interests of all concerned and presumably that they didn't feel there was any other club capable of taking on the licence, especially given the short notice.

Bulls v Saints is now on Saturday 23rd February, kick off itme not yet decided. I hope it's early though, even lunch-time (providing that isn't too big a deal for Saints fans). And I hope we aren't hit too hard in the pocket. And that we win. And every game until then. And after then.

I think you're confusing two things, Keighley. The club was owned by Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd and it was BBH which went into receivership not the club, and it was the club, and not the whole of BBH (which would have included the debts), which was bought by OK Bulls from the receiver. I think the fate of BBH is still undecided, but the club (and new owner) was given a one year provisional licence by SL/RFL after being vetted. We can all suggest it isn't right/fair or whatever we want, but that was the decision, along with the loss of income which also has to be endured. We have to assume the RFL/SL were acting in the best interests of all concerned and presumably that they didn't feel there was any other club capable of taking on the licence, especially given the short notice.

Thank you for your post. I understand what you are saying and I agree, that, in the end, the best solution was probably arrived at.

I do not understand however how the club can be a separate entity and a constituent part of BBH. How do you define what the club consists of as opposed to BBH and how can the debts be separated from the club and assigned to BBH leaving the club, however and whatever that definiton is, clear and free. Is that not why a NEWCO was formed to leave the debts with BBH, which was the owner of the nebulous "club" who got themselves into the aforesaid debt,

The RFL/SL granted the NEWCO a new temporary licence for SL. I get that, but a somewhat dubious procedure completely ignoring all the much ballyhooed licence applications based on set criteria that other Companies , new or not, had to comply with to obtain a SL licence.

I accept the results of all this but I still feel it was a flawed and fraudulent process and classic example of the end justifying the means.

Fine by me, but I don't think it solves many problems for those going for the weekend, like my bro and a few of his mates. Meh, maybe a half price ticket for City fans going down to Wembley on Sunday might boost numbers.

Thank you for your post. I understand what you are saying and I agree, that, in the end, the best solution was probably arrived at.

I do not understand however how the club can be a separate entity and a constituent part of BBH. How do you define what the club consists of as opposed to BBH and how can the debts be separated from the club and assigned to BBH leaving the club, however and whatever that definiton is, clear and free. Is that not why a NEWCO was formed to leave the debts with BBH, which was the owner of the nebulous "club" who got themselves into the aforesaid debt,

The RFL/SL granted the NEWCO a new temporary licence for SL. I get that, but a somewhat dubious procedure completely ignoring all the much ballyhooed licence applications based on set criteria that other Companies , new or not, had to comply with to obtain a SL licence.

I accept the results of all this but I still feel it was a flawed and fraudulent process and classic example of the end justifying the means.

I appreciate the connection with previous licence applications but I think this was more of an emergency measure and so can't be judged by the same criteria. First, without wishing to second guess the RFL/SL position, I doubt that any of the supposed potential bidders (I think both Fax and Featherstone were mentioned as possibles) actually wanted to be thrown in with such limited time to prepare, and I can't say I blame them one bit. The phrase 'poisoned chalice' jumps into mind.

As you accepted in your earlier post it was probably the best solution which was arrived at: a 'broken' club was fixed and the RFL/SL (and the wider game, to be fair) avoided a calamity in the flagship competition.

If I'm honest, my view is that if the Bulls 'keep their noses clean' they will be nodded through for next season, but it is only a one season licence and it is in the gift of the authorities to do otherwise if they deem it best. That said, I would imagine the RFL would prefer to leave all the licensing until the next full round, in time for the 2015 season rather than messs about with 'mini licensing' at the end of this season.

And yet you didn't raise any complaints when Wakefield and crusaders did exactly the same thing the previous year.

I don't quite know what yo are getting at.

Crusaders didn't think they had enough money and withdrew their licence application. they relinquished their SL licence.

Wakefield were about to lose their SL licence to Widnes and would have been the first team removed from SL by the licencing process since the abolition of p and r.

The sudden and unexpected withdrawal of the Crusaders gave them a reprieve and they kept their licence.

I did not realise that a NEWCI Spirit in 1873 had been formed to divioce the new ownership from the old debts. If I had I would have made the same case as I have made against the Bulls. They should have lost their licence.

However, as in the case of the Bulls, this became an emergency situation in that the SL would then have lost two clubs, Cusaders by withdrawal and Wakefield by non grant of a licence. The SL were only too happy to grant the licence to Wakefield to keep the numbers in SL.

The 12 for SL crew missed a golden opportunity to see their dreams come true. They could have rejected Wakefield's licence and with Crusaders withdrawal they would have had their 12 team league.